What Is A Chiasm / Chiastic Structure?

The term chiasm comes from the Greek letter chi, which looks like our letter X. A chiasm (also called a chiasmus) is a literary device wherein a sequence of ideas is presented and then repeated in reverse order, frequently used to emphasize the idea at the center. This results in a "mirror" effect as the ideas are "reflected" back in the passage. It is similar to a palindrome, a word or phrase that can be read forwards and backwards (e.g., deed, civic, kayak, level, racecar, rotator, Hannah, "Was it a rat I saw?"). Each idea is connected to its "reflection" by a repeated word, which is often in a related form.

The structure of a chiasm is typically expressed via a series of letters, with each letter representing a new idea. The first idea corresponds to the last idea, the second idea corresponds to the second last idea, the third idea corresponds to the third last idea, etc. For example, the structure ABCCBA refers to three ideas (A, B, and C) repeated in reverse order (C, B, and A). Chiasms frequently include a main idea in the middle of the repetition, which by virtue of its location is emphasized. The structure ABCXCBA has the three ideas (A, B, and C) repeated in reverse order, but a fourth idea is inserted before the repetition (X). The middle idea is the central point of the chiasm, the main focus. It is what all the other ideas are pointing to.

The motto of Alexandre Dumas' Three Musketeers, "All for one, and one for all," is a basic chiasm. The words all and one are repeated in reverse order in the second half of the sentence. The same goes for the common saying "When the going gets tough, the tough get going." Benjamin Franklin's axiom "By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail" is a chiasm, as is John F. Kennedy's "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." Some chiasms are so complex that they span entire poems. (Palindromes can do the same thing, as seen here.)

The letter to the Colossians is filled with chiastic structure. An example is 1:15-20.

A (1:15-16) — Everything in heaven and earth

B (1:17-18) — He is the head of the body, the church

A (1:19-20) — Everything in heaven and earth

There are many examples of chiasms in the Bible. Jesus' words in Mark 2:27 are in the form of a chiasm: "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." Genesis 6-9, Joshua 1:5-9, Isaiah 1:21-26, Ecclesiastes 11:3-12:2, Amos 5:4-6a, and Matthew 23:12 are other examples of chiasms. Joel 3:17-21 is an example of a longer chiasm, having seven parts, much the same as the chiasm found in Daniel 9:25-27.

Messiah cut off (v.26a)

Construction (v.25c) ——— Destruction (v.26b)

        Unto Messiah (v.25b) ——— Messiah covenant (v.27a)

Construction (v.25a) ——— Destruction (v.27c) 

Viewing Daniel 9:25-27 in this way clarifies a great deal of confusion. The last part of verse 27 describes the destruction of Jerusalem, which corresponds to its construction in the beginning of verse 25. The he in the first part of verse 27 quite obviously corresponds to the Messiah in the second part of verse 25. The death of the Messiah is the great focus of this prophecy as His death would make atonement for all evil and, as a result, bring in everlasting righteousness (v. 24). Understanding this chiasm does away with the false interpretation imposed on this passage by Dispensationalists.

Authority, Biblical Churches, and the Sovereignty of God

Is it not ironic how those Christians who claim that the Bible is their absolute and final authority on all matters pertaining to doctrine, church practice, family life, and personal holiness, are the first ones to run to whatever various early church fathers had to say in order to defend their godless anti-Christ traditions?

Why do you suppose that is?

Simple.

Because the traditions that their denomination holds to and practices cannot be found in, let alone substantiated and defended by, Scripture. Many of their traditions originate from and are rooted in the Roman senate and the pagan religions.

But will that stop these Christians from ignoring the facts, rejecting the Word of God, and refusing to submit themselves and their beliefs to the truth of God's Word and conform accordingly? Not in the least!

These Christians are either (A) ignorant of this information, or (B) willfully deceitful about this information. Anyone who studies church history can see how the early church fathers created the heresy of apostolic succession in order to give themselves the same authority that the apostles had and thereby dictate what direction the church should be going. It was these same fathers who changed the traditions instituted by the apostles.

The Lord's Supper used to be celebrated as a full meal between assembled brethren. The early fathers changed this to the ridiculous practice most denominations hold to today.

Baptism used to take place immediately upon profession, whether that profession was genuine or false. The fathers changed this so that various delays were now included. Infant baptism may or may not have been added.

From here, things only kept taking turns for the worse. When Constantine was Emperor, he introduced many pagan elements into Christianity. He gave Christianity their own temples to worship in; he helped solidify the developing clergy/laity split, paying clergy for their services; he brought pagan idols into the new temples; and he used the names of dead saints for these temples (the same way the pagans used the names of their gods for their temples).

After Constantine, the Catholic church continued on with Constantine's practice of marrying pagan religions and religious practices in with Christianity, and finding defenses for them from any and all fathers, no matter how unorthodox.

The Reformation attempted to correct some of the aberrant theology that was maintained by the Catholics, but they failed to reform the church practices themselves, or even the church liturgy (or worship service). Most of what you see practiced in most denominations today originates from and is rooted in the Roman senate and the pagan religions. If you carefully read the Bible and what the apostles taught when they established congregations in various locations, the traditions they taught were nothing like what you see in most churches today. We have veered drastically off course from what Jesus and His apostles had set in place.

Just as God had a specific manner in which the Jews were required to worship Him in the Old Testament era (He tells you how to worship Himself; you do not get to make it up as you go!), so too does the New Testament present a specific manner with which we are to worship God.

Why does every denomination worship God differently? Because they are not obeying Him and following the prescription He laid out for them in the Bible!

Some denominations will attempt to argue for their traditions based on the Old Testament. "The Jews had a temple, and a priest, and so on and so forth, therefore we pattern the church after that." Uh, sorry, but you are dead in the water if that is your argument. Like a sieve or colander, your argument holds no water. I encourage you to not only read the book of Hebrews, which does away with the Old Testament practices, but that you also read the book of Acts and pay attention to the letters of Paul.

The early Christians did not have temples to worship in because they were not supposed to. Christianity is different from every other religion on the face of the planet! It is freer! They met in houses, had plural male leadership, made decisions that affected the congregation together with the entire body, were all treated as equals without one person leading from the front, etc. What God's Word pictures they were taught by the apostles is vastly different from what we experience today.

Yet, when you point this fact out, those who are afraid of anything new (or in this case, old), run to the teachings of the early church fathers for their defense because they know that they cannot find such a defense from the pages of the Word of God. (Except they twist random, isolated verses ripped out of their immediate context.)

If those inside a religious organization called a "church" are more comfortable remaining there and continuing what they know, then let them be convinced in their own mind and let them do so. Romans 14 must come into play here. Brothers and sisters should not be at each other's throats here. While religious organizations calling themselves "churches" are not biblical churches, and are in every way in violation of the prescription given in the New Testament, nevertheless many of their members are still brothers and sisters in Christ.

Those who are in biblical churches as prescribed by the Word of God—house churches, do not target those already attending a "church" in order to try and convert them into your fold. Obey the great commission and go make disciples. If those you know who belong to such "churches" ask you about where you go and such, then you can share the truth with them. If through studying the Word of God they come to the same realization as you did, then they are free to join your congregation. If your only goal is to disrupt these religious organizational institutions in order to draw people into your fold, then you are going about it all wrong. When God is teaching us something, he always begins with us, and through us a ripple effect can happen. But leave that in God's hands. Do not attempt to manufacture a ripple effect by chasing after everyone else and trying to get them on board with something God still has not fully completed within you!

It does not matter what it is, Christians have a tendency to try and make the results reliant upon themselves and their own efforts. How about you allow God to work on you first, finishing what He started. When someone asks, you can share. But just as with salvation, it is God who must move. You are not responsible for the outcome. That is in God's hands! Stop trying to control what is not in your control to begin with! Let God move His people. You just be obedient to His Word.

Christianity: Capitalist or Socialist?

While living under complete Socialism is not good, healthy, or beneficial; likewise living under complete Capitalism is not good, healthy, or beneficial. Both should be taken and applied in moderation. The extremes of both Capitalism (Cronyism) and Socialism (Communism) are wrong!

If you think full-blown Capitalism is good, then you are an ignoramus. Are you aware that at the founding of America, 80% of the free labour force was self-employed? Today, less than 10% of people may be considered self-employed. They sell their labour to others for a cheap compensation. They sell themselves to help someone else get rich.

If you are ignorant enough to think that Christianity is compatible with Capitalism, I suggest you open your Bible and pay attention to what you actually read. Nowhere in the New Testament will you find teachings that it is all about you and your own self-gain. Spend some time paying attention to what is recorded in the book of Acts. Pay attention to 1 Corinthians 16:1-4, 2 Corinthians 8-9, 1 Timothy 5, et al. While there is nothing wrong with owning your own possessions and getting ahead, the selfish pursuit of possessions is not a Christian teaching. Compare what Christians in the 1500s to the 1800s owned compared to what many who call themselves "Christians" today own. Compare the social aspects of Christians from the 1500s to the 1800s with that of so-called "Christians" today.

Capitalists use Scripture to justify consumerism and materialism. Socialists use Scripture to justify entitlement and avoid personal responsibility. These are the bad elements of both Capitalism and Socialism. The fact is, as Christians we are supposed to be compassionate and we do have social responsibilities. The Bible teaches both—prescriptive and descriptive, in moderation.

The Bible teaches us to work hard and take personal responsibility for our actions and for our families. (Do not eisegete 1 Timothy 5:8 here by ripping the verse out of the context of the chapter and giving it a false interpretation!) It teaches us not to be lazy and to enjoy the work of our hands. The Bible does not teach that wealth is wrong, but that the love of it is. Our wealth should be the means of our generosity.

The Bible also teaches us to look after the poor, the sick and the vulnerable. It teaches us to share. It also teaches us to not judge whether we think people are deserving of our generosity or if they are truly worthy of help. (That is pride, arrogance, ego, and self-righteousness.) It teaches us to give until it hurts and to constantly be moving toward greater generosity. The Bible also teaches that our possessions are not our own and that we are only stewards of what belongs to God. It teaches that to whom much is given, much is required.

The good about Capitalism is that you should be able to pursue whatever course of living you want, and that competition between people in that course is a good thing. The bad about Capitalism is people trying to make a monopoloy of their course over anyone and everyone else who wants to do the same. Both Communism and Cronyism should be fought at every turn, and both Capitalism and Socialism should be applied in moderation.

How should a Christian view wealth?

 

What does the Bible say about managing your finances?

"You Have A Wife and Kids."

There were these three Hebrew boys - young men.

They saw what was happening, when no one else did.

They warned their people of impending tyranny. Even among those who might have seen the signs, nobody dared to speak up.

The king would go around having these grand ceremonies, where in every precinct, every citizen would have to bow down to a statue of His Highness.

“It’s just bending the knee, you fools. It doesn’t mean anything. Just stop causing trouble, or you’re just going to make life miserable for all of us!” they were told by their friends, family, and religious leaders.

That would’ve been easy. They would fit right into the rest of the crowd. Obey the law. Follow the orders. They’re for your safety and security.

So, when the trumpets sounded, and upon the king’s orders that every knee should bow, they broke with the ranks, broke the law, stood their ground, and said “Not us!”

---

A young German woman. She had a good life; after all, times were good. The great war was beginning to fade from memory.

Behind the façade of relative peace, there were troubling signs on the horizon. Few saw it, few talked about it. Everybody loved the new leader. He was uniting the nation, had a commanding presence, strong leadership, promised a great future, all accompanied by media images of a cultured gentleman beloved by children and animals.

It happens slowly at first. A new law here, a new restriction there. The change of name from the German Workers' Party to the National Socialist German Workers' Party, or Nazi Party for short. The attempted overthrow of the government of Bavaria should have been a red flag, but instead, buoyed by a compliant media, there was widespread sympathy for Hitler's aims.

While the attempt failed, it became the impetus for a pretty popular biography at the time. Politicians love writing a good biography. The young woman saw right through it, and began warning her contemporaries. “Nah,” they said. “Look at how free Germany is!”

Things weren’t happening fast enough for Hitler. What could he do? Ah -- an emergency. Well, what a timely coincidence. The Reichstag Fire, and in its aftermath, new emergency legislation, decreed without parliamentary consent. It abolished freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and association, freedom of the press, suspended the autonomy of federated states, legalized phone-tapping, the interception of correspondence and other intrusions. Travel restrictions. “Your papers, please.”

She figured that by this time, everyone could see what was glaringly obvious. “Conspiracy theorist!”, they shouted. By the time the order was given for the Nazi salute to be used in all greetings in Germany, everyone was happy to “Heil Hitler”.

It was an easy thing to learn to live with. “Just raise your damned arm,” they told her. “It doesn’t mean anything. It’s just some stupid symbol.” She resisted, even pleaded. “It’s not just a symbol”, she said. “It gives credence and power to the absurd notion that everything is fine.” The salute was a galvanizing social element. She became more vocal, and organized a resistance.

“You’re just causing trouble for the rest of us”, they accused. “It’s hard enough making a living in this town.” Even her pastor pleaded with her to stop causing dissension among the congregation and community.

“We have to obey the authorities”, he told her. “It’s Biblical. Some even think you’re just trying to make a name for yourself, like some grandstanding fool.” And they continued to raise their arms in salute. But not she. All but a few close friends abandoned her. She stood her ground.

Terry Neudorf

A pathetic argument that I hear many self-professing Christians use is, "You have a wife and kids..." So . . . because someone has a wife and kids, they should just knuckle under and bow to Nebuchadnezzar's golden statue? Seriously?!?!? What kind of "Christian" are you??? What kind of godless advice are you giving them? You obviously do not have a back bone, nor do you have any ounce of integrity or faithfulness to God. Knuckling under because "You have a wife and kids" is equivalent to loving your life more than the Lord Jesus and trying to save your life. You remember what Jesus said about that? Apparently not.

"He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. If he loves his own life more than Me, he CANNOT be My disciple." (Matt. 10:37 and Luke 14:26)

What kind of lessons are you teaching your children by knuckling under to the demands of others? It's amazing to see the difference in attitudes between Christians from the 1st century through the 1800s and those who call themselves "Christians" today. Their ungodly argument is that it is more important for you to look after your family than to stand your ground and stand by God and His Word. "It's only a statue, after all. It doesn't mean anything."

Lord God, surround me with godly Christians who have principles and integrity and stand on your Word, valuing the truth over their own lives; Christians who have a real relationship with you and place you above everything else in their lives, including their own families. Amen!

Despicable Christians!

The Witness Lee cult has a bad habit of trying to attach the name of Watchman Nee to their teachings in order to gain some credibility. They also have the wretched habit of republishing his works with alterations and additions that conform to their own teachings. This is highly dishonest. Having to behave in this manner just exposes yourselves as a cult.

Allegedly, from various comments I have read around the Internet, when Banner of Truth (or was it Monergism?) republishes the works of saints long dead, they alter some of the original words of the author to "correct" anything they disagree with theologically. This, brothers and sisters, is dishonest and should not be practiced by those who name the name of Jesus. This is not Christian behaviour.

If you are going to republish someone else's work, it should be published exactly as they wrote it. If you have contentions with what they wrote, you can add a section at the beginning or end that discusses it, or you can footnote it and make it known to the reader which footnotes are yours and are not part of the original work.

Just because you disagree with something they taught theologically does not give you the right to alter what they wrote. By doing so, you are putting words in their mouth and making them say things they never said. You are falsely attributing your own words and teachings to them. If you are going to republish the works of Richard Baxter or anyone else, then do so honestly and with integrity! Do not be a conniving liar and alter his original words to say what you want him to say but that he never said. Such behaviour is not Christ-like in the least, and is to spit on the name Christian.

I find it truly amazing how many people call themselves "Christians" who are willing to lie and deceive like this. A Christian should never lie! If you do not have an answer or do not know the answer, then be a man and have the humility to say, "I don't know," instead of making stuff up or outright lying about it. Do not alter someone else's works and their words just because you do not agree with what they said or taught. You do not have the right to do so! Christians who behave in this manner are despicable! Christians who lie in order to save face are no better.

Joshua Chavez

Joshua "Chavez" Monroe (as is likely his real name) is a YouTube personality known as Servus Christi. Although I do not think he has ever said it, by his actions he purports to be a minister of discernment. In some of his videos, he has some very accurate things to say, such as his video "Most Professing Christians Would Have Hated Jesus." The accuracy of these things, however, is not justification for the wrong (and sometimes sinful) things he says and does.

As a similar example, I once debated a Jewish homosexual named Alex Haiken who professed to be a Christian. He quoted to me a great many accurate statements with regard to exegesis. The problem, however, is that he was not putting a single one of them into practice. Quoting something accurate does not lend support to false interpretations of Scripture, justification of personal sin, or failure to enact what you are quoting.

Just because people say or quote accurate things does not mean everything they say or do is above board. Or even true. It certainly does not mean we should be idolizing them. Scripture itself must be our only rule of faith and practice. Our actions had best match our words.

Joshua condemns others for their "guilt by association," yet he is guilty of the same, which makes him a hypocrite. On his website, servuschristi.com, he recommends Beresford Job (now Chigwell Christian Fellowship) and Moriel Ministries (James "Jacob" A. Prasch). On the Beresford Job website, he promotes John Piper, John MacArthur, and Paul Washer. Therefore, according to Joshua's "guilt by assocation" argument, he is two degrees of separation away from some of the men he condemns. And since Piper associates with Rick Warren, that makes him three degrees away from Warren, and four degrees away from people Warren associates with. James Prasch, on the other hand, is close friends with Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel, who is close friends with Rick Warren. Again, two degrees of separation, and three from those Warren associates with. Prasch was also friends with the late Chuck Missler, who was friends with Kim Clement. That is three degrees away from a known false teacher, and two degrees away from another false teacher.

If Joshua is going to attack others for their "guilt by association," then he should be paying extremely close attention to his own guilt by association. By not doing so, Joshua is engaging in the hypocrisy of "do as I say, but not as I do." What did Matthew 7:3-5 say? What did Romans 1:28-2:3 say? Do you understand the relation of the speck and plank? They were sins of the same type. Whether small or big, if you commit the same sin as those you condemn, you condemn yourself because you do the same. This is not an "attack" on Joshua; it is simple observation, which any individual possessing the least amount of wisdom, understanding, and discernment, and rooted deeply in the Scriptures, could spot. By the way, if we were to monitor our "guilt by association" relationships, then we'd never have any fellowship with anyone but ourselves because every single person is connected to someone else who is connected to someone questionable. To cut such ties would leave us as islands unto ourselves.

While there is nothing wrong with us being friends and spending time with unbelievers and false teachers, nevertheless we should not be walking in their ways but exposing their wicked deeds. We should be witnessing to them and praying for them. Jesus spent time with various sinners, but He never lowered Himself to participate in their wickedness and hypocrisy. Instead, He frequently exposed their hypocrisy, especially the religious elite.

While this is bad, if what Pulpit & Pen has written is true, then Joshua has much bigger problems. Allegedly he wooed a woman from South Africa, got her over to America, "married" her, consummated that "marriage," and then sent her back to Africa. The woman in question apparently still refers to Joshua as her husband, but he has ghosted her and refuses to communicate with her. He planned to use her to fund his "ministry," but when it turned out she was not independently wealthy but frugal, he turned her aside claiming she would only hinder his "ministry."

First and foremost, Joshua, whatever "ministry" you might have, it takes a back seat to your marriage. Marriage is your primary ministry. If you have children, your family becomes your first ministry. If you put any other ministry before your wife or family, then you are unfit for ministry! If what Pulpit & Pen has written is true, then Joshua "Chavez" Monroe is disqualified from ministry! He reveals himself to be a complete and utter hypocrite. He points out how others should be disqualified from ministry all the while committing far worse and heinous acts. I feel sorry for his wife, and my prayers go out to her. I am praying for Joshua's repentance and reconciliation.

Amen and... Awomen?!?

Ignorant Democratic Representative, preacher Emanuel Cleaver, ends opening prayer to the 117th Congress with "Amen and awomen."

The prayer came after dimwitted anti-intellectual House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that the House was going to "honour all gender identities" (of which there are only two—male and female) by modifying pronouns in the House rules for references to family relations: father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister. These words would be ignorantly altered to "parent, child, sibling, spouse, or parent-in-law" instead.

The word "amen"—which is a transliteration of the Greek (ἀμήν), which itself is of Hebrew (אָמֵֽן) origin—refers to faithfulness and trustworthiness. Adverbially, it means "surely," "truly," or "so be it." It is a word of affirmation. It is not engendered. It has nothing to do with gender/sex.

The sheer stupidity of modern society is quite vexing. Apparently any word with "man" or "men" in it needs to be neuter-ized because it is "offensive." As such, women no longer experience menopause, it's now to be referred to as womenopause.

Manifestation is now also Womanifestation.
Umbudsman is now also Umbudswoman.
Permanent is now also Perwomanent.
Manufacturing is now also Womanufacturing.
Emancipation is now also Ewomancipation.
Demand is now also Dewomand.
Maniac is now also Womaniac.
Maneuver is now also Womaneuver.
Human is now also Huwoman.

And so on and so forth...

By saying, "Amen and awomen," Liberals reveal once again just how few brain cells they actually possess and just how much wisdom, intelligence, logic, and common sense they lack. These people are dewomented. If society continues down this path of sheer stupidity, sooner or later they are going to completely self-destruct.

Who's bringing the popcorn to this circus of a show?

SHOCKER! Lying Muslims and Pro-Islam Supporters

Muslims and pro-Islam supporters are attempting to argue that the interpretation "whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him," is a misinterpretation and should be interpreted as "whoever changes the religion of Islam, kill him." With this argument of theirs, we can witness just how ignorant and uneducated these people are, and just how big of liars, by examining Islam's most trusted sources.

Sahih al-Bukari 6922 says, "Narrated 'Ikrima: Some Zanadiqu (atheists [poor translation]) were brought to 'Ali; and he burnt them. The news of this event reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Messenger forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Messenger, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.' "

'Ali was the 4th of the rightly guided Kalifs.

Sunin an-Nasai 4065 says, "It was narrated from 'Ikrimah: "Some people apostatized after accepting Islam, and 'Ali burned them with fire. Ibn 'Abbas said: 'If it had been me, I would not have burned them; the Messenger of Allah said: 'No one should be punished with the punishment of Allah.' If it had been me, I would have killed them; the Messenger of Allah said: 'Whoever changes his religion, kill him.' "

Not only that, but Qur'an 3:85 says, "If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to Allah), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter he will be in the ranks of those who have lost."

It is utterly amazing how Muslims and pro-Islam supporters attempt to argue about "context" and "misinterpretations" when they clearly do not have a clue what context actually is or looks like, and they know nothing about interpretation. Instead of trying to make up ridiculous arguments and false interpretations, these people would benefit from educating and informing themselves by reading Islam's most trusted commentaries. The worst example of this was the woman who attempted to argue on live TV that "72 virgins" is a mistranslation and it should read "72 raisins" instead. Now, since Muhammad called black people "raisin heads," was this ignorant woman saying that it was "72 black people" or "72 dried grapes"?